Slashdot Mirror

No crime at Princeton will go unsolved with Hunter on the job!

Wasn't he the guy that starred in the mostly-lame 80's cop show Hunter? Nice change of careers from washed-up actor to Mech & Aero Engineer at Princeton.

No crime at Princeton will go unsolved with Hunter on the job!

Wasn't he the guy that starred in the mostly-lame 80's cop show Hunter? Nice change of careers from washed-up actor to Mech & Aero Engineer at Princeton.

No crime at Princeton will go unsolved with Hunter on the job!

Wasn't he the guy that starred in the mostly-lame 80's cop show Hunter? Nice change of careers from washed-up actor to Mech & Aero Engineer at Princeton.

You are thinking of The Avengers.

This was the plot of a crap TV movie staring Luke Perry and Martin Sheen.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0165498/

How did this turkey get all the way up to 4.1 stars? Perhaps the ending perked up (I couldn't bring myself to sit through to the end)? Perhaps the near-nudity of the middle of the film became actual nudity at the end of the film?

One day, maybe in the not too distant future, there will be an article on /.

It will read like this:


Your Rights Online: MPAA admit that everything they have said for the last 5 years has been a practical joke
Posted by kdawson on Tuesday Cantrembember 75th @ 27:00
from the i-knew-it department
Anonymous Coward writes: The MPAA has finally admitted what a lot of people on Slashdot have suspected for a while. Everything they've done for the last 5 years was all part of a practical joke.

"The lawsuits, the absurd DRM, the crazy "the entire industry is going to collapse" rhetoric - we never believed any of this crap", said a spokesman. "What actually happened was someone suggested that perhaps we could somehow start announcing these ridiculous ideas, record the reaction then release it as a movie. Kind of like The Truman Show, only much much bigger." Has the MPAA finally gone too far? Will this lead to their ultimate collapse? Quiver with excitement. Tremble with fear. Eat peanuts with raisins.

And all this time I had considered The Andromeda Strain a good movie.

But holy crap I need to have a talk with my mother. I remember watching this movie at a matinée on one of the many Saturday afternoons when my mother dropped me and my sister off so she could have time for herself. Shit! I was only 4 years old in 1971. No wonder I remember watching this movie from the lobby through the crack in the theater doors.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066769/
http://www.1000misspenthours.com/reviews/reviewsa-d/andromedastrain.htm

From the trivia section of The Shawshank Redemption:

"The American Humane Association monitored the filming of scenes involving Brooks' crow. During the scene where he fed it a maggot, the AHA objected on the grounds that it was cruel to the maggot, and required that they use a maggot that had died from natural causes. One was found, and the scene was filmed."

Oh my god! It's "Them"! II.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047573/

You guys are suffering from nerd-centric tunnel vision - and you are "bad TV" amateurs. I was warned about the Star Wars Holiday Special by a colleague who loaned me the tape. All sort of dire warnings about 'can't unwatch it', worst show ever, etc.

Granted, it was horrible. But not only was it not the worst show ever, nor the worst holiday special ever, it wasn't even the worst holiday show in 1978! That high honor goes to Christmas at Disney World (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0283286/), a 1978 Christmas special starring *mimes* Shields and Yarnell, for Christ's sake! If I ever develop a brain tumor I will look back to that fateful day. Wookies named "Itchy" (presumably) droning on about Life Day can't possibly compare to a hour of a mime variety show.

And there are far worse TV shows than mime Christmas shows. You probably haven't heard of a little show called "It's a Dog's Life" - that in many markets was cancelled *at the first commercial break*.

Nuke 'Em High, it was documented in 1986. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090849/

"I have faith in nothing but this: when the universe collapses and dies, there will be three survivors: Tyr Anasazi, the cockroaches, and Dylan Hunt trying to save the cockroaches." -- Tyr Anasazi.

The spies who really act like James Bond don't last. They attract attention to themselves and get caught. The last thing a spy wants to do is attract attention.

I'm reminded of the introductory speech in the first episode of Spy: the recruits wouldn't be doing any combat or firearms training, because if they ever needed such in real life, it would be too late anyway, and the chainsaw would probably already be warmed up.

...laura

And for the director, get Joss Whedon. Seriously. I can't stress this enough. He would do it exactly right.

...about the ramifications (both good and bad) of TC can be found here.

The main problem I have with TC is the fact that it removes control over the hardware from the user and gives it to a 3rd party entity.

When I purchase hardware, I expect to have full control over it's capacities. If the hardware is capable of doing something, I should be able to do it. There's something a bit eerie about giving your computer a command/instruction and having it come back and tell you it could do it, but that it won't (2001: A Space Odyssey anyone!?).

My worry is that TC misinformation will be pushed so much that the idea of the user being in control of their hardware will be considered old fashioned. Well, it may be old fashioned, but it also has the side effect of being correct.

Now, I do think that TC has a place in the corporate world where there is no expectation of employees being able to do whatever they want on the computer (businesses have a right to control their own equipment). But the propagation of TC into the public or home is what doesn't set well with me.

McCallum is interviewing writers for the live-action series. Here's a tip for you, Rick: Stop the interviews. Hire Timothy Zahn as the head writer. Then hire any combination of Michael Stackpole, A.C. Crispin, Kevin Anderson, and Kristine Kathryn Rusch as his staff. There. Done. Let Lucas cast the vision, but leave the rest up to Zahn and his team. And for the director, get Joss Whedon. Seriously. I can't stress this enough. He would do it exactly right.

Sounds familier to me... http://imdb.com/title/tt0218817/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quotes#qt0227219

Actually, I blame Gene Simmons..... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088024/

Scarily enough, this is far from the first instance of a smart weapon 'turning' on its handlers.

I seem to recall seeing a documentary about this about 20 years ago. Ahh, here it is.

As long as I'm not listening to Jean-Claude Van Damme pronounce it, I don't care.

How does watching out for a playboy and a hooker falling in love help you from being censored? Wait? Gege? Not Gigi?

I can't believe I'm about to quote this movie, I really never thought it would happen... From Roadhouse:

Doc: Do you always carry your medical record around with you?
Dalton: Saves time.

Now, if only we could have a story that I could relate the sex scene in the back room of the bar to. "But I'm on my break!"

See: Brazil
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/.

hitting that big SOB with a bomb

not quite true:

Barbarella was released in the USA before the MPAA introduced the motion picture rating system on November 1, 1968. It was consequently released with a tag "Suggested For Mature Audiences". A re-release in 1977 (to cash in on the success of Star Wars (1977)) was edited to obtain a "PG" rating and was called "Barbarella: Queen Of The Galaxy. The video version is of the original uncut version and not the "PG" version (despite the subtitle "Queen of the Galaxy" and the "PG" rating on the cover) The version now on video in Australia is of the Laser Disc version which has a more "nude" opening credit scene. The difference {is] in the floating titles [which] reveal more of Jane Fonda than the original version and video did. The original European version had all the nudity intact on its first release. Barbarella: Alternate Versions

Indeed. On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

nope - he just referenced a 2 month old movie.

If anyone hasn't seen This Film is not yet Rated which the Gamasutra article's title alludes to I would recommend it as an eye opening look into the ratings process.

Just like the MPAA the ESRB is using an anonymous group of individuals with no clearly defined lines between ratings to effectively censor content (since many consoles will not even play AO content similar to many major studios refusing to release NC-17 content).

And here's the quote that the summary should have included in my opinion:

Do raters apply their own moral standards (on subjects like violence, substance abuse, and sexuality) to guide their rating recommendations? Or, are they merely to apply a standard that the ESRB has set out for them?

PV: It's really a combination of both. Rating games is an inherently subjective practice in the sense that content is always going to be interpreted in different ways by different people. So part of the equation is the raters' own views on content, but as I said, parity and consistency play important roles as well.

...was the day Doc Brown completed the first test of his Time Machine.

What a bunch of geeks.

-1 disinformative for you there.

Sweden has never been socialist. It has, during nearly all of the previous century, followed a policy of the "Middle Path" choosing the elements from the free market where they are best applied and elements from socialism where they are best applied.

Nowadays it is following a Bush/ Bliar/Thatcher-style neoliberalism with heavy emphasis on buracracy, privatization and corporate welfare.

Go look at the statistics. During the years Sweden prospered economically, had low debt or a surplus, had good services such as health care, low unemployment, it was during the periods of closest adherence to the middle path. Look at the times where services are few and of poor quality, the budget is in shambles, lots of debt and high unemployment, it is during times when deviation from the middle path has been strongest -- such as the last 15 years.

The Swedish banks are the worst examples of failure of unrestrained capitalism. They have collapsed and been bailed out twice. However, normally when one buys out the debt from a failed company, the buyer then owns the company. Stupidly in the last case, the buyer (the Swedish government) simply handed the banks back to the same asshats that bankrupted them in the first places. These are the clowns that then pick the recipients for the Swedish Bank's Prize in Memory of Alfred Nobel. To try to lend credibility to their scam they, to their credit, have schmoozed into the Nobel celebration. However, the Swedish Bank's Prize in Memory of Alfred Nobel is to the Nobel Prize what films like Ernest in the Army is to fine cinema.

So how, exactly, is this *not* organized crime?

"Hah. Don't kid yourself. It's not that organized."

(KEN'S EARS)

This reminds me of the movie "The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer", http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066302/ from the 70s where a guy is voted into power in England with the policy that every government decision will go to a public referendum.

Very soon every person in England is inundated with documents describing all sorts of obscure government issues like how to respond to a tense diplomatic situation in a some obscure African country that no-one's heard of before. There a great scene of this couple in their working class flat, smoking cigarettes in their nightclothes, working their way through huge piles of questions.

It makes the point in a humorous way that your average person neither cares nor is capable of understanding a lot of the issues that politicians are required to decide upon (and take responsibility for). Sure, some people do care and are capable of understanding the issues and even have the time to investigate and make an informed decision. But that's a huge minority and possible a skewered cross section of the general population (though it's not immediately obvious in which way they're skewed, or to which party).

It's a funny movie too. Well worth watching.

This whole line of reasoning was explored int he movie Bicentennial man.. i'd recommend it.. long but interesting.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0182789/

Like how 2 R rated movies aren't necessarily the same in terms of content.

Right, it's like comparing Knocked Up with Halloween. Both R rated films but worlds apart in context.

Like how 2 R rated movies aren't necessarily the same in terms of content.

Right, it's like comparing Knocked Up with Halloween. Both R rated films but worlds apart in context.

The American Ideal. ...or...

more to your point.

That being, piracy and people passing on upgrades.

When people download Windows, Microsoft doesn't get money. When people stick with an older version of Windows, Microsoft doesn't get money. So, they provide a crap OS (XP or Vista) and then update the thing to a passable state.

Result? (1) The OS becomes "OK" over time but (2) becomes a bear to install & update on a new computer due to the number of patches (& reboots) so home users and tech shops won't even bother or will charge for it (putting it out of reach as an option), and (3) becomes a bear for the average techie to install on their custom box, due to a dearth of drivers and the long install time, to the point where it is cheaper in time & energy to buy it installed on a new computer.

Everyone wins in this situation, except people like the majority of those on /. who like an OS that purrs like a pussy. Business gets an acceptable OS, over time. Home users get a cheap and good enough OS. OEMs & Dell/HP get their $ from new hardware sales. Microsoft gets what its illegal monopoly has allowed them to swindle.

Now, if Microsoft actually delivered a good OS (e.g. Win2000) they would majorly shoot themselves in the foot. No need to call home to register product. Easy to crack/copy/install...forever. Half decent techies can re-install Windows for their neighbors. Corporate world doesn't need subscriptions, and even gets a little "careless" about installs. Microsoft loses on every front.

So, is Microsoft's behavior really all that surprising? And if not, is it worth complaining about? Accept the way things are or go for an alternative.

The article failed to mention where can I get some of this poison? I need to cut down on my heating bill this winter.

I'm withholding judgement until release..

although, admittedly, I'm a bit dispassionate after Ridley Scott deviated from the original novel by marking Deckard definitively as a replicant.. I'm always interested in seeing what the director considers a truer version of their intention..

A great example of a movie salvaged from profit-driven editing is brazil, by Terry Gilliam. Wikipedia has a great article detailing the rather drastic differences between the released versions.

Eve, huh?/A?

Harrison Ford himself made it clear that he hated the voice-overs, that he intentionally did it so bad because he was hoping the studio execs would just throw it out on account of its shittiness.

Do you have a source for that? I've always heard that Ford denied the rumor that he did it it poorly on purpose.

IMDB (admittedly not the most reliable source) reports it that way: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/trivia

I did not see it mentioned, but an older science fiction film called "Creation of the Humanoids" dealt with the idea of human/robot relationships. A number of other films and shows have touched it too, but "Creation of the Humanoids" (1962) had a legal situation where a human could be formally "married" to a robot. If I remember correctly, it was called "being in report" in the film.

The movie is a bit talky, but has a couple of interesting ideas that rise above its budget and the dialog is usually engaging. The actors and actresses are not bad either, for the kind of film it is.

IMDb Page for Creation of the Humanoids (1962)

In the end, the real problem is not whoever ends up in the cast, it's with the writers: Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci. They also wrote the screenplays for Transformers and The Legend of Zorro. Based on their performance there, you can expect an overlong story with too much plot, adolescent humour, and paying just enough lip-service to longtime fans for them only to notice shortly after viewing the film that they have allowed themselves to be violated in some very uncomfortable places. A reboot of Star Trek sounds exactly like the kind of project they would take on and unless they have learned a thing or two in recent years, they are just going to rape a franchise again.

In the end, the real problem is not whoever ends up in the cast, it's with the writers: Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci. They also wrote the screenplays for Transformers and The Legend of Zorro. Based on their performance there, you can expect an overlong story with too much plot, adolescent humour, and paying just enough lip-service to longtime fans for them only to notice shortly after viewing the film that they have allowed themselves to be violated in some very uncomfortable places. A reboot of Star Trek sounds exactly like the kind of project they would take on and unless they have learned a thing or two in recent years, they are just going to rape a franchise again.